7 ms·

Trains can also be pretty quaint in Europe today now that low cost airlines like Easyjet and Ryanair offer cheap flights to most major cities. I live in Berlin

Trains can also be pretty quaint in Europe today now that low cost airlines like Easyjet and Ryanair offer cheap flights to most major cities. I live in Berlin and even domestic trains are far more expensive than domestic flights to medium and large cities.

iandanforth 8y ago
Ignorant American question. Why is this the case? What are the costs that railroads are having to pay that makes them more expensive?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
  - dang 8y ago
    I misread the comment the same way at first, but he was clearly just being polite and self-deprecating.
    - MisterScrooge 8y ago
      Good point - that's 100% my bad. I wish I could retract my comment, but I don't think there's a way; I appreciate your insight.
      - dang 8y ago
        Since we're the only ones in the subthread, I'll just delete your comment. (Am a moderator here in case that's not clear.)
        MisterScrooge 8y ago
        That makes sense. I knew I had seen your scree name before lol. Thank you - much appreciated.
- blang 8y ago
  This video does a pretty good job of explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwjwePe-HmA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwjwePe-HmA
- rpiguy 8y ago
  So long as fuel is reasonably priced, planes can take more people farther, faster it is simple economics. Trains are still preferable for local trips and even some medium range trips, but to go all the way across Europe by train would be terribly expensive compared to taking a cheap flight.
  - ip26 8y ago
    That doesn't really answer the question. What about planes is cheaper? For simple economics to apply, they have to do something cheaper than trains, and it's not obvious what that is. As far as I know, for example, trains are significantly more fuel efficient per passenger-mile.
    - sl1ck731 8y ago
      Planes most likely benefit from the economies of scale, simply for the huge number of riders they service in comparison with trains for longer stretches. The complicated area of railroad tracks probably doesn't help either. Someone is paying for them and the maintenance is frequent judging by the business my friends working on the railroads get.
    - hylaride 8y ago
      There are several reasons why flying can be so cheap in Europe: 1. The discount airlines have become masters at turnaround times. When the planes are sitting at the gate, they're not making money. They slashed these as much as they could. 2. They only fly one model of airplane (typically either the 373 or a320) to simplify maintenance. 3. Most major airports in Europe are privatised. One of the effects of this is that they've become giant malls that want to get people through them, so landing fees have steadily gone down (there are edge cases where the airports pay the airlines to go to them, but those are rather rare exceptions). 4. Some airlines (more specifically Ryanair) fly to cheaper/more outlier airports. If you take a Ryanair flight to Paris, you're landing in Beauvais Airport, which is almost halfway to the english channel. You'll then have to take a bus. When in europe, I usually prefer Easyjet for the reason that though they're more expensive, you're landing at an airport with decent transit to the city you're visiting. 5. There's no frills at all. If you're just flying with no luggage, you won't believe how cheap it can be (I flew from madrid to london for 25 euros). But the fills aren't cheap. Checked baggage is more than the cost of the flight, food is a rip off, etc. Also, trains in europe are still often state-owned (not the case everywhere, I know), so they're forced to run uneconomical lines for political purposes, etc.
- elif 8y ago
  I'm also an ignorant american, but I've traveled Europe for months by rail and air. By american standards, both methods are dirt cheap. Ryanair cuts every cost you can imagine. No free water or pretzels, tiny seating area, no first class, outskirts airports, no checked or carry on, tarmac boarding. On trains you get sufficient space to stretch your legs, a power outlet, wifi, unlimited baggage etc. and you get to arrive and depart in the city center. I think the pricing is based upon consumer value more than service costs.
- NoNameHaveI 8y ago
  This is worth your 8 minutes of time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbEfzuCLoAQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbEfzuCLoAQ I love trains, but the economics of rail travel in the USA can't be overcome. Until robot trains.
  - munk-a 8y ago
    I have seen that and agree that country-wide train service is indeed expensive, but there really should be better offerings on the east coast that could compete against bus service. Being on a train with plenty of room has a huge quality advantage over buses and the scaling of their carrying capacity means that companies can be more free in allowing luggage and seating space than the economics of planning the layout of a bus.
    - ghaff 8y ago
      Train service in the US Northeast is pretty good at least for the cities it services. It's not price-competitive with Megabus but is train anywhere competitive pricewise with discount buses?
      - inferiorhuman 8y ago
        at least for the cities it services And that's the catch. I've been told that years ago it was better, but try to catch a train to a secondary city in New England and you'll often find that the only offering is an occasional Amtrak branded bus.
        ghaff 8y ago
        Fair enough. It's mostly the coastal corridor that's good with a couple on inland spurs from NY/New Haven up to St. Albans and Montreal that aren't terrible. But otherwise, there's something of a gap between commuter rail systems (which are pretty hub and spoke in any case) and what Amtrak covers.
        8y ago
- nicoburns 8y ago
  Part of it is fuel tax (which planes don't pay in Europe). I'm speculating, but I'd guess that the maintenance on the tracks is pretty significant. Planes don't have that issue.
- xioxox 8y ago
  Trains need a lot of infrastructure, meaning maintenance and construction costs (i.e. tracks and stations). Also, as they are slower, wage costs can be higher than planes.
- Symbiote 8y ago
  In no particular order: 1) Fuel tax. There's no tax on jet fuel, but rail companies pay tax on their diesel or electricity 2) Inflexible service, but high expectations. The European rail timetable is changed twice a year, and those trains will run (in normal circumstances). There will be a train from X→Y every hour from 5am until midnight, and those trains run even if very few people use them on a particular day. An airline can change the schedules more easily, and cancel/rebook passengers at fairly short notice. 3) Rail infrastructure is subsidized differently to aircraft infrastructure. I don't know enough to compare which benefits the most. Externalities aren't costed properly (e.g. noise and pollution). 4) Railways must still provide low-profit-(even loss)-making services, they may be expected to do this using profits from other routes. For example, long distance intercity trains might be subsidizing rural services.
  - Scoundreller 8y ago
    Railways also have the externality of stopping all traffic. More of an issue for lumbering freight trains than passenger trains though.
- sjmulder 8y ago
  This came up in something related: the Dutch Greens have been campaigning recently to reduce or eliminate flights to and from Schiphol within a 750 km radius, in favour of trains. Answering your question, on the issue of price they note that no fuel tax is is paid on airplanes fuel and no VAT (21%) on flight tickets. I think it’s a clever win/win play: reducing short haul flights in favour of railways not only reduces emissions and noise pollution, but it also frees up some capacity at Schiphol. And there’s been some success already: the house has accepted a motion to eliminate the Schiphol-Brussels route.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
kuschku 8y ago
Are they? Düsseldorf-Munich for 26,70€ including reserving a seat. Kiel-Düsseldorf 29,90€. To get back, 26,90€. Kiel-Munich and back for 53,80€. Not even Ryanair is that cheap, especially when you consider that with trains you don’t have to go through security, have none of the check-in times and other bullshit, and can take luggage without paying a 60€ surcharge.
- ritchiea 8y ago
  None of those are to or from Berlin. Munich might have cheaper rail options than Berlin, especially since Munich is a more traditional hub of industry. Flights Berlin to Köln are definitely cheaper than trains. Generally in my experience flights in Europe are less expensive than trains YMMV.
  - kuschku 8y ago
    Düsseldorf-Berlin is available for 19,90€, I doubt flights are much cheaper than that. You just have to check sites like https://bahn.guru/ https://bahn.guru/ to find the cheapest connections.

iandanforth 8y ago

Ignorant American question. Why is this the case? What are the costs that railroads are having to pay that makes them more expensive?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
- dang 8y ago
  I misread the comment the same way at first, but he was clearly just being polite and self-deprecating.
  - MisterScrooge 8y ago
    Good point - that's 100% my bad. I wish I could retract my comment, but I don't think there's a way; I appreciate your insight.
    - dang 8y ago
      Since we're the only ones in the subthread, I'll just delete your comment. (Am a moderator here in case that's not clear.)
      - MisterScrooge 8y ago
        That makes sense. I knew I had seen your scree name before lol. Thank you - much appreciated.
blang 8y ago
This video does a pretty good job of explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwjwePe-HmA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwjwePe-HmA
rpiguy 8y ago
So long as fuel is reasonably priced, planes can take more people farther, faster it is simple economics. Trains are still preferable for local trips and even some medium range trips, but to go all the way across Europe by train would be terribly expensive compared to taking a cheap flight.
- ip26 8y ago
  That doesn't really answer the question. What about planes is cheaper? For simple economics to apply, they have to do something cheaper than trains, and it's not obvious what that is. As far as I know, for example, trains are significantly more fuel efficient per passenger-mile.
  - sl1ck731 8y ago
    Planes most likely benefit from the economies of scale, simply for the huge number of riders they service in comparison with trains for longer stretches. The complicated area of railroad tracks probably doesn't help either. Someone is paying for them and the maintenance is frequent judging by the business my friends working on the railroads get.
  - hylaride 8y ago
    There are several reasons why flying can be so cheap in Europe: 1. The discount airlines have become masters at turnaround times. When the planes are sitting at the gate, they're not making money. They slashed these as much as they could. 2. They only fly one model of airplane (typically either the 373 or a320) to simplify maintenance. 3. Most major airports in Europe are privatised. One of the effects of this is that they've become giant malls that want to get people through them, so landing fees have steadily gone down (there are edge cases where the airports pay the airlines to go to them, but those are rather rare exceptions). 4. Some airlines (more specifically Ryanair) fly to cheaper/more outlier airports. If you take a Ryanair flight to Paris, you're landing in Beauvais Airport, which is almost halfway to the english channel. You'll then have to take a bus. When in europe, I usually prefer Easyjet for the reason that though they're more expensive, you're landing at an airport with decent transit to the city you're visiting. 5. There's no frills at all. If you're just flying with no luggage, you won't believe how cheap it can be (I flew from madrid to london for 25 euros). But the fills aren't cheap. Checked baggage is more than the cost of the flight, food is a rip off, etc. Also, trains in europe are still often state-owned (not the case everywhere, I know), so they're forced to run uneconomical lines for political purposes, etc.
elif 8y ago
I'm also an ignorant american, but I've traveled Europe for months by rail and air. By american standards, both methods are dirt cheap. Ryanair cuts every cost you can imagine. No free water or pretzels, tiny seating area, no first class, outskirts airports, no checked or carry on, tarmac boarding. On trains you get sufficient space to stretch your legs, a power outlet, wifi, unlimited baggage etc. and you get to arrive and depart in the city center. I think the pricing is based upon consumer value more than service costs.
NoNameHaveI 8y ago
This is worth your 8 minutes of time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbEfzuCLoAQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbEfzuCLoAQ I love trains, but the economics of rail travel in the USA can't be overcome. Until robot trains.
- munk-a 8y ago
  I have seen that and agree that country-wide train service is indeed expensive, but there really should be better offerings on the east coast that could compete against bus service. Being on a train with plenty of room has a huge quality advantage over buses and the scaling of their carrying capacity means that companies can be more free in allowing luggage and seating space than the economics of planning the layout of a bus.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    Train service in the US Northeast is pretty good at least for the cities it services. It's not price-competitive with Megabus but is train anywhere competitive pricewise with discount buses?
    - inferiorhuman 8y ago
      at least for the cities it services And that's the catch. I've been told that years ago it was better, but try to catch a train to a secondary city in New England and you'll often find that the only offering is an occasional Amtrak branded bus.
      - ghaff 8y ago
        Fair enough. It's mostly the coastal corridor that's good with a couple on inland spurs from NY/New Haven up to St. Albans and Montreal that aren't terrible. But otherwise, there's something of a gap between commuter rail systems (which are pretty hub and spoke in any case) and what Amtrak covers.
        8y ago
nicoburns 8y ago
Part of it is fuel tax (which planes don't pay in Europe). I'm speculating, but I'd guess that the maintenance on the tracks is pretty significant. Planes don't have that issue.
xioxox 8y ago
Trains need a lot of infrastructure, meaning maintenance and construction costs (i.e. tracks and stations). Also, as they are slower, wage costs can be higher than planes.
Symbiote 8y ago
In no particular order: 1) Fuel tax. There's no tax on jet fuel, but rail companies pay tax on their diesel or electricity 2) Inflexible service, but high expectations. The European rail timetable is changed twice a year, and those trains will run (in normal circumstances). There will be a train from X→Y every hour from 5am until midnight, and those trains run even if very few people use them on a particular day. An airline can change the schedules more easily, and cancel/rebook passengers at fairly short notice. 3) Rail infrastructure is subsidized differently to aircraft infrastructure. I don't know enough to compare which benefits the most. Externalities aren't costed properly (e.g. noise and pollution). 4) Railways must still provide low-profit-(even loss)-making services, they may be expected to do this using profits from other routes. For example, long distance intercity trains might be subsidizing rural services.
- Scoundreller 8y ago
  Railways also have the externality of stopping all traffic. More of an issue for lumbering freight trains than passenger trains though.
sjmulder 8y ago
This came up in something related: the Dutch Greens have been campaigning recently to reduce or eliminate flights to and from Schiphol within a 750 km radius, in favour of trains. Answering your question, on the issue of price they note that no fuel tax is is paid on airplanes fuel and no VAT (21%) on flight tickets. I think it’s a clever win/win play: reducing short haul flights in favour of railways not only reduces emissions and noise pollution, but it also frees up some capacity at Schiphol. And there’s been some success already: the house has accepted a motion to eliminate the Schiphol-Brussels route.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

kuschku 8y ago

Are they? Düsseldorf-Munich for 26,70€ including reserving a seat. Kiel-Düsseldorf 29,90€. To get back, 26,90€. Kiel-Munich and back for 53,80€. Not even Ryanair is that cheap, especially when you consider that with trains you don’t have to go through security, have none of the check-in times and other bullshit, and can take luggage without paying a 60€ surcharge.

ritchiea 8y ago
None of those are to or from Berlin. Munich might have cheaper rail options than Berlin, especially since Munich is a more traditional hub of industry. Flights Berlin to Köln are definitely cheaper than trains. Generally in my experience flights in Europe are less expensive than trains YMMV.
- kuschku 8y ago
  Düsseldorf-Berlin is available for 19,90€, I doubt flights are much cheaper than that. You just have to check sites like https://bahn.guru/ https://bahn.guru/ to find the cheapest connections.